Skip to content

A podcast for those who design, develop and run websites.

Boagworld is the personal website of Paul (the Wurzel) Boag who lives in the heart of rural Dorset. He produces a weekly podcast along with Marcus (pop star) Lillington on all things relating to building and running websites.

Latest shows

138. Freeform
In this week's show the entire boagworld production team answer listener questions.
137. Adobe
In this week's show, Aral Balkan joins us to discuss the release of Adobe CS4 and we discuss how not to get blacklisted by google.
136. Stagnation
In this week's show we talk about overcoming stagnation and Ed Merritt shares a technique to achieve fixed footers without the use of javaScript.
135. Libraries
In this week's show we talk with John Resig on javaScript libraries and address the question what is more important when we release an app: speed or quality?
134. Chrome
In this weeks show we give you advice on choosing the right hosting company, Teifion and John send us a review of dConstruct and of course we discuss the release of Google Chrome, can it topple IE?

or view all shows

Have your say

Leave a message for the show...

Buy my book: The website owners manual. A book for all those involved in designing, developing or running websites on a daily basis.

Body blow to web accessibility guidelines

Published on: May 23, 2006 by Paul Boag

Joe Clark is an outspoken and passionate accessibility expert who has been involved in the creation of the next generation of accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.0). You may therefore be surprised to learn that he has slammed the new guidelines in the strongest terms possible.

Joe Clark has never been shy about his opinions. He has always been a controversial figure but his latest article on A List Apart is something else!

In his article on WCAG 2.0, he systematically rips the guidelines to shreds, barely finding a good word to say about them or the body who created them.

The article can be nicely summed up with the following extract:

As such, WCAG 2 will be unusable by real-world developers, especially standards-compliant developers. It is too vague and counterfactual to be a reliable basis for government regulation. It leaves too many loopholes for developers on the hunt for them. WCAG 2 is a failure, and not even a noble one at that.

In short it is a depressing read for anybody that cares about web accessibility. Despite that I would encourage all of you to take the time to read the article.

It leaves you wondering about the future of web accessibility. If Joe is to be believed web developers will have a difficult road ahead as they try and explain to clients that complying with WCAG 2.0 is just not feasible. In turn web site owners are going to be left vulnerable to prosecution without a definitive standard to which they can comply.

The only ray of hope I can find in the whole thing is that perhaps this will encourage website owners (especially those in the public sector) to think beyond checking the WCAG checkbox. Maybe this will make them think about how to really make their site more accessible rather than simply concentrating on covering their collective arses.

Joe is so demoralised with the state of WCAG that he is creating his own working group to create "real world" accessibility guidelines. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

Comments

Comments are for the discussion of this post. If you have other questions / comments then post them to the forum or send me an email

  • Post by Joe Clark on May 23, 2006 11:51 PM

    Well, one thing developers can do with accessibility is simply to comply with WCAG 1.0 – plus the extensions my “working group� will be publishing.

  • Post by Daniel on May 24, 2006 4:50 AM

    Paul, as I read this article in my daily feeds list I thought of forwarding it on to you and then I saw your post as my next entry to read. I knew you would be on top of this.

    I agree with your comment that this will encourage developers to really conceptualize what accessibility means for their specific project and how to make it happen. While guidelines are required, understanding and implementation of them are just as important. Sites often suffer in usability from their developers obsession to becoming checklist compliant. I look forward to the developing commentary on the WCAG 2.0 development and how it affects real work working designers.

  • Post by Ronalfy on May 24, 2006 5:07 AM

    It is rather depressing that the body responsible for providing a common ground has instead provided a sink hole.

  • Post by Paul Boag on May 24, 2006 9:15 AM

    The problem Joe is that a lot of my clients are large public sector organisations who are going to include WCAG 2.0 in their invitations to tender by default. Making the arguement that we should not conform with that standard but support a seperate "unofficial" standard will be a difficult fight.

  • Post by Stuart Robertson on May 24, 2006 2:49 PM

    Public sector accessibility requirements are often based on some part of the WCAG guidelines. I'm not aware of anyplace that has adopted everthing (eg. WCAG 1 level 3). In the US, Section 508 includes some parts of WCAG 1 level 1 and 2. In Canada, Government websites aim for WCAG 1 level 2 -- but I know many that fall short.

    I don't think you'll see many public sector organisations adopt WCAG 2 if it's difficult to comprehend and harder to implement.

    I think an "unofficial" standard that was endorsed by groups like the Alliance for Digital Inclusion (ADI), American Association of People with Disabilities, Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), etc. -- would be more readily adopted by the Public Sector.

  • Post by Ross Johnson on May 25, 2006 1:14 AM

    I read the article and agreed with a lot of what was said (all of it actually), and I think it is a classic example of "design by committee". Seven years late, obviously trying to accomedate way too many opinions, and poor organization.

    While the idea behind the W3C is using the industry leaders to set the standards, it seems the group has simply grown too large.

    I think a smaller more focused group, like what Joe has set up, is a better structure for developing these types of standards.

  • Post by Bruce Darby on May 25, 2006 9:39 AM

    This is a good article and it’s great to get people talking about WCAG2. However, I do think that the WCAG2 shows a change in the philosophy of the guidelines. Paul has already said it but I’ll say it again; It’s less about box ticking (although I still feel that has a part to play) and more about trying to give everyone a comparable experience when accessing a website. I know many of us have moved way beyond this but a good example is where someone puts in alt text, for an image containing important information, which does not fully convey all the information in the image. At it’s worst it is putting “image� but something like “Important graph showing sales figures� is obviously not good enough either! But for somebody who doesn’t fully understand the guidelines they could think that this actually passes as they don’t understand what it is like for someone using a screen reader.

    Bobby’s dead! Although back in a slightly different form at http://webxact.watchfire.com/. If you search for sites that still have the Bobby logo and submit those pages to watchfire a lot will fail which is one of the reasons why people are moving away from a purely box ticking approach.

    If anyone is interested in experiencing what it’s like to use a screen reader you can download JAWS from http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp It’s a free 40 minute trial that needs a reboot to use again. It uses keyboard shortcuts that most developers know already but adds a few of it’s own like insert + down arrow to start reading a page, insert + F7 for a pop up box listing all the links on a page. If you turn the screen off, it can really bring home to you what it’s like not to be able to use the visual clues we take for granted.

Leave a comment

Additional Information

Supporting boagworld

Boagworld only exists thanks to the kind support of the following people. Check them out.

Speaking and writing

Generated by FeedInformer